Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.

B. Heleno; M.F. Thomsen; D.S. Rodrigues; K.J. Jorgensen; J. Brodersen

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5334

Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.

B. Heleno, M.F. Thomsen, D.S. Rodrigues, K.J. Jorgensen, J. Brodersen

72 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening. Design Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges. Data sources For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events. Results Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%). Conclusions Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening - overdiagnosis and false positive findings - were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	B M J
Vol/bind	347
ISSN	0959-8146
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5334
Status	Udgivet - 5 okt. 2013

FN’s Verdensmål

Dette resultat bidrager til følgende verdensmål

Adgang til dokumentet

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5334

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5334

Citationsformater

@article{528304809c754e2681216a849f48f4eb,

title = "Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.",

abstract = "Objectives To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening. Design Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges. Data sources For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events. Results Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%). Conclusions Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening - overdiagnosis and false positive findings - were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.",

keywords = "semrap-2013-3",

author = "B. Heleno and M.F. Thomsen and D.S. Rodrigues and K.J. Jorgensen and J. Brodersen",

year = "2013",

month = oct,

day = "5",

doi = "http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5334",

language = "English",

volume = "347",

journal = "The BMJ",

issn = "0959-8146",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.

AU - Heleno, B.

AU - Thomsen, M.F.

AU - Rodrigues, D.S.

AU - Jorgensen, K.J.

AU - Brodersen, J.

PY - 2013/10/5

Y1 - 2013/10/5

N2 - Objectives To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening. Design Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges. Data sources For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events. Results Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%). Conclusions Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening - overdiagnosis and false positive findings - were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.

AB - Objectives To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening. Design Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges. Data sources For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality. Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study's authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events. Results Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%). Conclusions Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening - overdiagnosis and false positive findings - were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.

KW - semrap-2013-3

U2 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5334

DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5334

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0959-8146

VL - 347

JO - The BMJ

JF - The BMJ

ER -

Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review.

Abstract

FN’s Verdensmål

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater